Allowed

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P., v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC6 Dec 2023WP(C)/17195/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal refusing to entertain a senior citizen's claim based on her pension and lack of complaint against her sons. The Court remanded the matter, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the claim specifically addressing a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P4 and P7 set aside; Maintenance Tribunal directed to reconsider petitioner's claim after hearing parties and adverting to Ext.P1 within one month.

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P., Vs the District Collector… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARY TERESA GLADYS M.P., AGED 74 YEARS,
W/O. P.T. JOSEPH, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PORT AVENUE,
PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682506.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SHERRY J. THOMAS
JOEMON ANTONY
ANTONY NILTON REMELO

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, 1ST FOOR OF CIVIL STATION, ECHAMUKU, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682030.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, FORTKOCHI., PIN – 682001.

¶12

3 MARY GREETY P.J, W/O DOMINIC SHIBU ANTONY, DOOR NO. 134, DEVE RAJ COMPOUND, A.D.T COLONY, CONOOR, NILGIRI, TAMILNADU, PIN – 643101.

¶13

4 SEBIN JOSEPH, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PORT AVENUE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN – 682506.

¶14

5 MELBIN, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PORT AVENUE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682506.

¶15

BY ADVS.C.R.SANISH
KARTHIK S. ACHARYA(K/1235/2009)
ANJANA K.P.(K/001818/2023)
SRI.P.S.APPU, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶18

-2-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen,
within the ambit of the Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

¶21

(‘Act’, for short), has filed this writ petition
impugning Ext.P4 order of the Maintenance
Tribunal and Ext.P7 order of the Appellate
Tribunal - both constituted under the afore

¶22

‘Act’ - as being illegal and unlawful.

¶23

2.Sri.Sherry J.Thomas – learned counsel

¶24

for the petitioner, vehemently argued that both

¶25

the impugned orders are untenable and illegal
because the respective Tribunals refused to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 23 of the
‘Act’, in spite of the specific application of
his client, solely because she has a pension of

¶26

her own and thus concluding that she is not
required to be maintained by any of the

¶27

children. He argued that these findings in the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶29

-3-

¶30

impugned orders are per se vitiated because,

¶31

Section 23 of the ‘Act’ mandates that, if the

¶32

person in whose favour the document has been
settled, refuses to comply with certain
specified obligations, the senior citizen
obtains an indefeasible right to have it set
aside. He thus prayed that Exts.P4 and P7 be set

¶33

aside and the Maintenance Tribunal be directed
to reconsider her client’s claim, adverting
specifically to the settlement deed – a copy of
which is on record as Ext.P1.

¶34

3.Sri.Sherry J.Thomas concluded his
submissions, saying that, even an ex facie
reading of Ext.P1 would show that an obligation
has been fastened on the daughter of the senior
citizen, namely the 1st respondent herein, of
taking care of her and of providing her

¶35

requirements; and that, since the said

¶36

respondent has refused to do so, his client is

¶37

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶38

entitled to have the reliefs sought for granted.

¶39

4.Sri.Sanish C.R. - learned counsel for

¶40

respondent No.3, however, submitted that the
impugned orders are irreproachable because, the

¶41

Statutory Tribunals have found that the
petitioner is not in need of any maintenance
since she has a pension and also because she has

¶42

no complaint against her sons, namely
respondents 4 and 5 herein. He argued that,
therefore, in the afore circumstances, there is
nothing that his client had to do for the senior
citizen - her mother; and therefore, that the
allegation, that she did not provide for her
requirements, is without any factual basis. He,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.

¶43

5.Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government

¶44

Pleader, supported Exts.P4 and P7, saying that

¶45

the Tribunals conducted enquiries, to find that

¶46

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶47

even the senior citizen does not have a case

¶48

that she requires to be maintained by any of her
children, much less the 3rd respondent herein.

¶49

He submitted that it is, therefore, the

¶50

Tribunals came to the conclusion that her
request, to have Ext.P1 set aside under Section

¶51

23 of the ‘Act’, is unnecessary.

¶52

with the afore submissions of the respondents

¶53

because, Section 23 of the ‘Act’ operates in a

¶54

very specific ambit. The Tribunals under it are

¶55

expected to verify whether the criteria that are
engrained therein are attracted; and if so, then
consider the request of the senior citizen.

¶56

7.In the case at hand, the Tribunals found

¶57

that the senior citizen has a pension and that
she has no complaints against her sons, namely
respondents 4 and 5 herein. However, this, by

¶58

itself, could not have been the sole reason to

¶59

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶60

-6-

¶61

presume that she does not require to be

¶62

maintained by the 3rd respondent - her daughter,
particularly after she had obtained a Settlement
Deed in her favour, namely Ext.P1. This matter

¶63

certainly will, therefore, require to be
reconsidered by the Maintenance Tribunal, within

¶64

the purlieus of Section 23 of the ‘Act’.

¶65

In the afore circumstances and in such

¶66

scenario, I order this writ petition and set
aside Exts.P4 and P7; with a consequential
direction to the Maintenance Tribunal to

¶67

reconsider the claim of the petitioner, after
affording her, as also respondents 3 to 5, an
opportunityofbeingheard,adverting

¶68

specifically to Ext.P1; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action thereon,
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

¶69

than one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.

¶70

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶71

-7-

¶72

Needless to say, since I have not entered

¶73

into the merits of any of the rival contentions

¶74

of the parties, I clarify that my observations
herein are not intended to influence the
decision of the Maintenance Tribunal, in any
manner; and that it should enter into a
dispassionate view independently, based on all

¶75

relevant and germane aspects.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶78

JUDGE

¶79

akv

¶80

WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2023

¶81

-8-

¶82

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17195/2023

¶83

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶84

EXHIBIT P 1THE TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED,
DATED 07-05-2018.
EXHIBIT P 2THE TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL REPORT DATED
8-5-2018, WHICH SHOWS THAT FROM 19-4-
2018 TO 08/05/2018 THE PETITIONER'S
HUSBAND WAS IN HOSPITAL .
EXHIBIT P2 ATHE TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 26/11/2022 WHICH CERTIFIES THAT
THE PETITIONER IS UNDERGOING
TREATMENT.
EXHIBIT P 3THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
18-2-2022, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MAINTENANCE
TRIBUNAL .
EXHIBIT P 4THE TRUE COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE
HON'BLE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL DATED 28-
10-2022 .
EXHIBIT P 5THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO
DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 01-12-2022 .
EXHIBIT P 6THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.01.2023
EXHIBIT P 7THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
7.3.2023 .

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P., v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Teresa Gladys M.P., v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil D Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

V.C. Anil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf M. a. Vs Banking Ombudsman

Thomas J Vayalat Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Pradeep Kumar P. Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs

Abhilash R Vs M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited